As we've noted, see Saturday's snapshot for a few examples, there is real push back among Iraqi law makers to Haider's attempt to circumvent the Constitution and create a new Cabinet.

While the western media has ignored this pushback, Haider can't.

Hence the interview with MEM.

In the interview, Haider insists that none of it his fault or, for that matter, his idea.

The puppet insists that he did what he did because he was being threatened by Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Abadi
has been accused of undermining democracy and “leading a coup” against
Iraq’s power-sharing political structure that has been in place since
2003, which guarantees a certain number of political positions to the
country’s Shia, Sunni and Kurdish blocs.But
Abadi told Middle East Eye in a phone interview that rival political
blocs had not responded to his request for them to nominate their
preferred independent candidates for cabinet posts last month.He
also said that the call for an independent cabinet had come from
Moqtada al-Sadr, the influential Shia cleric who last week threatened to
raid Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone unless his demands for political reform were met.[. . .]“It
was Sadr who demanded a government of technocrats, in which everyone is
independent except for the prime minister. It was not my demand.”

Moqtaqda made him do it?Someone call Flip Wilson and tell him Haider's decided to put on the Geraldine dress. Can't wait to hear Haider tell us about his boyfriend Killer. Moqtada made him do it.Haider's never come off strong but has he ever appeared weaker?Meanwhile War Hawk and pig at the trough Hillary Clinton has been spinning madly for days now that (a) she's not in bed with Big Oil, Coal and Gas and (b) that the only one questioning her is the Bernie Sanders campaign and (c) they are telling lies.Yes, in this absurd world today, Hillary Clinton can actually get away with calling someone else a liar.Or she thinks she can.Yesterday, DEMOCRACY NOW! (link is text, audio and video) sat down with the woman Hillary unleashed her rage on last week to get at the truth:AMYGOODMAN:
With the Wisconsin primary just a day away, Democratic presidential
challengers Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sparred over the weekend
over whether fossil fuel lobbyists are funding Clinton’s campaign. The
dispute took center stage after video emerged of a Greenpeace activist
questioning Clinton at a campaign rally at the State University of New
York in Purchase Thursday. You have to listen very closely to the
interaction between the activist and Hillary Clinton.

EVARESNICK-DAY: Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?

HILLARYCLINTON: I do not have—I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick—

EVARESNICK-DAY: Yeah, and registered lobbyists.

HILLARYCLINTON: I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me! I’m sick of it!

AMYGOODMAN:
During a rally on Friday in Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders called on Hillary
Clinton to apologize for characterizing remarks he made about the oil
and gas industry’s donations to her campaign as lies.

SEN. BERNIESANDERS:
Yesterday, some of you may know, Secretary Clinton was met with by a
environmental activist at a forum that she held, and the activist asked
her if she would reject money from the fossil fuel industry, which I
have. And the reason I have—the reason I have is that I happen to
believe that climate change is one of the great crises facing our
planet. But Secretary Clinton said in response to this young woman, she
said she was sick—quote, "sick of the Sanders campaign lying about," end
of quote, contributions she received from the fossil fuel industry.
Well, Secretary Clinton owes us an apology. We went online. We were
telling the truth. The truth is—the truth is that Secretary Clinton has
relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal
industry. According to an analysis done by Greenpeace, Hillary
Clinton’s campaign and her super PAC have
received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry. In fact,
57 oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists have directly contributed to her
campaign, with 43 of them contributing the maximum allowed for the
primary. And these are not just workers in the fossil fuel industry,
these are paid registered lobbyists. Secretary Clinton, you owe our
campaign an apology. We were telling the truth.

AMYGOODMAN: On Sunday, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Hillary Clinton about her ties to the fossil fuel industry.

HILLARYCLINTON:
I have been working to try to move us away from fossil fuels for many
years. When I was in the Senate, I introduced legislation to take away
the subsidies. I voted against the Dick Cheney’s energy bill in 2005.
And I could go on and on. When I got to be secretary of state, I was at
the original meeting in 2009 with President Obama, where we were trying
to convince China and India and others to come on board with accepting
some restrictions—

CHUCKTODD: Right.

HILLARYCLINTON:
—that would lead to what finally occurred with the Paris agreement. So,
when people make these kinds of claims, which now I think have been
debunked. Actually, The Washington Post said "three Pinocchios." The New York Times
also analyzed it, and other independent analysts have said that they
are misrepresenting my record. I’m just not going to—I feel sorry
sometimes for the young people who, you know, believe this. They don’t
do their own research. And I’m glad that we can now point to a reliable
independent analysis to say, no, it’s just not true.

AMYGOODMAN:
Joining us now is Eva Resnick-Day. She’s the Greenpeace activist who
confronted Hillary Clinton Thursday. Also with us, Charlie Cray,
research specialist for Greenpeace and lead researcher on the fossil
fuel lobbyists’ contributions to the Clinton campaign. According to
Greenpeace’s research, the Clinton campaign has received more than
four-and-a-half million dollars from lobbyists, bundlers and large
donors connected to the fossil fuel industry. Clinton maintains she’s
received about $330,000 from individuals who work for fossil fuel
companies.We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Eva Resnick-Day, let’s
start with you. Describe the scene at the university, State University
of New York—Purchase, when you were able to question Hillary Clinton.
How hard was it to get to her?EVARESNICK-DAY:
Absolutely. So, it’s pretty difficult to make sure that you’ll get to
the front of a rally and even have the opportunity to stick your hand
out and, hopefully, get to ask a question to Secretary Clinton. We,
myself and an activist from 350 Action named Miles, had to wait about
six hours in order to make sure that we were at the front of the line to
even get the opportunity to propose this question.AMYGOODMAN: Had you been trying before this day?EVARESNICK-DAY:
Absolutely. This is a larger climate movement of thousands of activists
across the country who have showed up to rallies, to protest at
fundraisers, demanding that whoever our future leader is is accountable
to the people and not contributions and corporations in their campaign.AMYGOODMAN: She says you’re a Bernie Sanders representative who was trying to bird-dog her. Is that true?EVARESNICK-DAY: It’s absolutely not true. I am a democracy organizer for Greenpeace USA.
I have no affiliation to the Sanders campaign. And Greenpeace is an
independent organization that does not support or oppose candidates.AMYGOODMAN: So, explain—EVARESNICK-DAY: We only work on issues.AMYGOODMAN: Explain what it was you exactly asked her and what she replied.EVARESNICK-DAY:
Yeah, thank you so much. So the first part of my question seems to
never make it into the news, and that was: "Thank you so much for
tackling climate change. Will you act on those words and reject future
fossil fuel money in your campaign?"AMYGOODMAN: And what was her answer?EVARESNICK-DAY:
Her answer was: "I have only taken money from employees of the oil and
gas industry, and I’m so sick of the Sanders campaign lying." And I
don’t know if you could hear it, but in the video I also tried to
interject, but wasn’t able to, "Also, fossil fuel lobbyist money."AMYGOODMAN: And explain what you mean.EVARESNICK-DAY:
So, 57 registered coal, oil and gas lobbyists have directly donated or
bundled more than $1.3 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign. And
these lobbyists are people whose job it is to make connections with
Senator Clinton to influence her policy going forward. And giving her
money in the campaign, they’re clearly trying to find influence. And I
don’t think that that is how democracy should work. It should be
democracy for the people, not registered lobbyists.And for the segment on her donations from Big Oil, et al, click here -- excerpt:AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Charlie Cray, to some of the numbers from the Greenpeace report
on fossil fuel lobbyist contributions to the Clinton campaign. The
report shows all Clinton—that Clinton’s campaign and the super PAC
supporting her have received close to—or more than $138,000 from fossil
fuel lobbyists and more than $1.3 million from bundlers. You say, all
told, the campaign has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists,
bundlers and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry. Where is
the rest of that money coming from? Who are the lobbyists and bundlers,
and who do they represent, Charlie?CHARLIECRAY:
So, there are 58 lobbyists. Eleven of them work directly for the
industry, for ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and other trade
associations, and the rest are hired lobbyists who work on behalf of a
whole range of gas and oil and coal companies. And 11 of these overall
58 lobbyists have bundled money for the campaign. The total combined
between direct contributions and bundled money comes close to $1.5
million, actually.

Again, the idea that Hillary Clinton would call anyone else a liar is hilarious.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.